numbers from our pipeline data base completed projects and projects through end of next year, we are showing 1400 units and 300,000 square feet of non-residential space and residential space which includes so many -- soma. so there is new space, but also space that disappears because of the building that is taken down. that maybe the cause of the difference. >> i think we certainly need to come back to this issue at a later date and i would be interested to make sure that whatever property money, tax,

increase comes in that it's invested back in the neighborhoods within the eastern neighborhoods. thank you. >> okay. well, that looks like we can continue to move on. thank you colleagues for hearing this item. >> as you can see we have some work to do. this was a very helpful item. thank you staff for the presentation today. that is very helpful and for the residents, thanks for coming out. i hope to bring up this item so we can continue to discuss this. i would like to entertain a motion to carry this for another time. motion

is carried. item 2. >> the clerk: item 2: [hearing - oversize vehicle overnight parking restriction]1310122.sponsors: tang; breed, cohen, mar and yeehearing to review the effectiveness and impact of the oversize vehicle overnight parking restriction pilot implemented by the municipal transportation agency. 10/8/13; received and assigned to the government audit and oversight committee >> the clerk: sf 212341234 >> as we change the house a little bit, we are going to give supervisors tang an opportunity to give opening remarks on this item. >> thank you, i would like to introduce this today regarding overnight parking restriction. it prohibited these vehicles from parking between midnight and 6 :00 a.m. :00 a.m. certain areas. the purpose of this is to address the many concerns that many of the overnight vehicles are parking on the streets which are turning many of the areas into parking lots.

this program applies to all types of roadside vehicles which includes commercial vehicles. the sf mta worked with hope so they would offer supportive housing and resources for those who may need those resources. our hope is to have individual vehicles stored as long as they participate in the case management of the goal of securing permanent housing. on any given night, i used to see regularly about 20 over sized vehicles. on -- lincoln and see

many of those, they include full physical if if -- prior to implementing the program, the sf issued warnings using informational flyers placed on vehicles parked in these locations. since the flyers, we have heard positive feedback from residents. for that i want to thank my co-supervisors, breed and mar and supervisor's yee as well. and we'll hear from sf mta and we have captain

here for any questions. thank you for your patience. duffy is here also. with that, mr. yee.> >> good afternoon, bond yee. as you know this is a long standing issue of overnight vehicles parking in the city and we also previously stated the impact that were caused by them throughout the city in our original policy and proposal report. we have a number of tools to manage parking in the

city and we use them judiciously and appropriatelly but none of these tools was adequate in effectively addressing the over sized vehicle parking in the neighborhoods. the board of supervisors sometime asked us to take a look at the issues to see if there is any new options that we haven't considered to bring forward for consideration. based on the surveys we have done and also analysis with the conversations with the various stake holders, we came back with a simple parking restriction tool. that is to prohibit the parking of over sized vehicles longer than 22 feet or taller than 7 feet from parking between midnight

and 6:00 a.m.. this includes trailers and other extensions of vehicles that you see out in the street. the board of supervisors adopted this tool as section 7.2.54 of the transportation code last fall. the board of directors of the mta set the fine of $110 including the court house fees. because of the issues raised during the approval process for these restrictions, we committed to carry out a 3-month evaluation period for the pilot program before deciding on any next steps and including any extensions or locations requested by community members. this is our follow up report to you and you have copies of the evaluation report and we also posted the information on the sf mta website. the pilot locations

reflected based on a few surveys request and recommendations from the board of supervisors offices and the sf p.d. officers and sf mta and community members. because the overnight nature of the restrictions, the enforce ment is mainly carried out by night watch and p.d. station. the pilot location was originally selected to concentrate in two sf p.d. directs in ter very well and bayview to enforce the operations. we also consolidated the location extent so we have enough sample size in either location to be able to take some meaningful

measurements and comments on the results. these locations were reviewed at an sf mta public hearing in the june 4, 2013. i will show you the maps of those locations in a second. in cooperation with the office of hope and also the san francisco department of public health and the homeless outreach team, we conducted outreach to particularly house those folks in the pilot area of 2013 and also following adoptions of the locations. flyers were issued as supervisor tang mention several

times in those areas providing resources where those folks can ge assistance from programs and also accommodations for their needs. i have with me, my colleagues, captain curtis from taraval station and from better of hope and can talk about issues related to housing and process during this program. again, our parking control officers issued warnings for approximately a month before the regulations took effect on july 15th, and also along with information flyers. to my knowledge, we had two citations that were issued in error by enforcement folks

and they were immediately rectified and dismissed. this is the area in the west side of the city comprising of pilot area one. as supervisor tang mentioned it's concentrated in areas that are adjacent to open space, parks and reservoirs and places where there are no current residential frontage. the other area pilot is the eastern half of the city and these are a little bit different because some of them are concentrated in areas of industrial use, but there are no activity in the evening. from our 3-month pilot of before and after surveys, we found that the over sized

vehicle parking restriction were very effective in reducing the over sized vehicle parking in those pilot locations. but there were some displace ments of vehicles to other location observed and the concern remains about the effects of vulnerable people living in vehicles and the engagement to those vulnerable individuals. 74 over all -- >> mr. yee. supervisor tang has a question. >> i know you are going to talk about the 74 citations issued. if you can iv us a break down of the vehicles cited. >> yes there were 74 citations issued which average to less

than one per day 19 of them were identified as mobile home/bus types. 14 of them were advance and 26 were to trucks and picks up and suv's and 15 were not known. we couldn't from the citation that the police issued to identify the type of vehicles they were. the ones that were potentially habitable were less than half of the total of citations that we issued. we do not have an occasion of how many of those were housing individuals in them. to our knowledge, no over sized vehicle known to have been towed from the pilot area.

we continued to monitor the number of vehicles to make sure they don't accumulate more than 5 during the time which makes them subject to towing. you can see the regulations that were posted were pretty effect ever in the areas that they were posted. the over size vehicled parking in those areas specifically were pretty much minimized, to less than 5 percent of what they were observed from previously. as i mentioned earlier, there were some cases where we observed that the over size vehicles parked just outside the pilot area or displaced to areas immediately adjacent. those are

some of the locations where we need to pay some special attention to and follow up. >> can you read some of the locations? >> full ton street we observed 15 vehicles parked along the stretch. 2 #shgs lincoln way, clarng ton from 3-0, pennsylvania 4-0. toe land, and 4-0 and industrial area 3-0. >> there is one fan. it looks like at 7th street and 16th street and berry street there were 21 and it's gone down to

zero? >> yes. none observed afterwards. >> all right. thank you so much. please continue. i'm sorry, supervisor mar. i didn't see you there. >> thank you. i just wanted to ask mr. yee. i know the mta's conclusion that this was successful is based on observing very few vehicles in those enforced areas, but at least for my district, many residents have communicated to my office, i don't think they have communicated to the mta but it's pushed people on front street and 14th after along presidio boulevard. i think that's the impact. and in determining success that is one question i have is how can you determine success when it pushes people to other spots

and in your data of displacement of folks that live in their vehicles. i would like to know from duffy and police captain a little bit more about the tracking of the human impact from pushing people that may not have a home out of an area that they may have been relying to other areas. those are some questions about the affects of the analysis because displacing people is critical and what about the large vehicles that are pushed as well. >> that is a very good question. from our ends related to the parking situation, i would be glad to share with you. >> right before midnight is where the number of people will move their vehicles conveniently to another spot very close by. whether it's success or not, to me it has to carefully track whether

displaced people impact and what kind of services or lots have been developed but also just what happens when we just push it to another spot, too. >> that's a very good point. >> i want to remind people in the community that we have a no applause. if you want to show your support, you can show it by happy fingers and if you are not happy, by thumbs down. happy fingers or spirit fingers. we have a couple people in the back. mr. von, please continue. you were talking about the mta and the

outreach program? >> the challenge is balancing the concerns for the vehicularly housing folks for the need to address the issues that are cited different times about the over sized vehicles. it's not a unique problem to san francisco. it's experienced in other cities as well. the location specific over sized vehicle parking restriction is meant to address the problem on a limited and focused way. of course, an alternative is to have a blanket restriction of these types of vehicles throughout the city, but we don't think that would be desirable. it will cause other impact that we don't have solutions for and it a very severe type of restriction. although from our standpoint it would be a lot easier to

enforce. also to point out, it's also not legal to live in a vehicle currently based on police code restrictions in the section 96/97 i believe. that is very difficult to enforce as we mentioned many times previously. one thing that we can consider doing and we've spoken with mr. duffy and he's going to elaborate a little bit more is that maybe through some cooperative efforts with some private entities there may be some opportunities to work with them and maybe develop some accommodations for some of these folks so that they have a safe place to house their

vehicles while seeking services that will help transition them into housing. i'm sure mr. duffy will get to that in a few minutes. as far as recommendations we recommend an incremental approach. obviously the locations where vehicles have been displaced or vehicles that continue to have a preponderance for these vehicle types is a priority. i have in the next slide, locations where we would use as a guide to consider additional implementation of these regulations. i think the mitigating these at first impacts from the over sized

vehicles and housing individuals provides cooperation and engagement by police and others in the community. further use of over sized park and restriction should continue participation with police and city. to ensure vehicle dwellers receive non-threatening outreach and information about available services and to help them -- avoid fines and penalties. the last item is a program moving forward especially on the areas where vehicles are being

displaced. this list of locations would probably be at the top of our priority in terms of evaluating additional locations for additional implementation. we intend to use this tool and as we do all other tools to manage on street parking in consultation of the community and mindful of both policy fundamentals and real world needs. the overnight parking restriction can be used appropriately but certainly not a panacea. we are the first to acknowledge that. we are going to continue to work with the city partners and how to use this parking control appropriately with other measures and methods. i will be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor tang has a question for you.

>> thank you. i would like to see as we acknowledge that this is a pilot program that applies to not just the vehicularly housed vehicles but commercial vehicles and recognizing that some people have housing challenges. i don't know if perhaps we can bring up mr. duffy as well that he has worked on addressing some of those needs. >> good afternoon, supervisors, thank you for having me here. what i can share with you is that there was two rounds of outreach that took place from sf hot. at this stage there has not been additional outreach. i sat with andy and made revisions so it's current and we've asked if sf mta can get

flyers out to vehicles. that is one step where we can generate more contacts. there have been about six contacts with the hot team and currently we do not have a vehicle stored on treasure island, but with the support of the members of the board, we have established as you know the mayor's fund as hope to cover storage cost that would be accumulated. it is going to be very easy for us going forward to now be able to store vehicles on treasure island and be able to pay for that and coordinate with the hot team and sign a contract where they are available and agreeing to permanent housing. i can report that as a result of the flyering, one individual has moved into permanent housing. so working with the sf

hot team and the mayor's home fund provided to provide a move in cost 1 person has gone into permanent housing as a result of that. i was visited by the homeless and they came and shared information and ideas and i'm eager to pursue those ideas. among them were programs that are taking place in seattle and san diego where faith based institution allow individuals to park their vehicles on there and it appears from one of the programs is not governmentaley based and we want to make sure that they can be respectful on that property and then to work with them. so i have reached out to the sf inter faith council and heard the coalition worked with the inter faith

council and met to talk about doing that. in addition there is a program in oregon where a vehicle can be in a business. so generally where businesses have had problems to their property and nuisance activity, they have allowed people being on that property. i'm going to seek help from those programs because they have security problems and this is something that we can work on together. i definitely feel that with this support of the inter faith council we can make some head way and handful of people that did come forward, i think two or three were security guards in the city. they are making minimum wage and not able to make enough to support housing in the city. there are options

that we can pursue at that time. one point is that the coalition made is engaging around the whole issue of towing vehicles. that is an issue i have encountered and i have worked with the supervisors office that when people have had their vehicles towed. and i have worked with the office and if somebody saig -- says you have towed this vehicle where someone's income is very margin al. i have asked if maybe the sf mta can consider policy changes tools to so people don't wind up in

a situation. i do appreciate the mta as well as the police department will have flyers they can put on vehicles so people can access services. >> i have a question. you referenced storage at treasure island. which fund pays for this? >> the mayor's homeless fund. >> is there a limit to be able to -- let me backup. i assume you are subsidizing the cost to park in treasure island. there is a cost, right? you agree to do this for 3 months or a year. >> the vehicle would be stored but the person wouldn't have access to the vehicle. that's not the intent. the intent -- i didn't even think of it that

way. >> okay. so the notion would be that there would be an agreement between sf hot and the individual. it's very similar what happens when someone goes into a stabilization room. when an individual who is homeless maybe disconnected from benefits and not have any income and decide to go into services, they don't pay for that room. the city is paying for that room but the individual commits to participating 2-3 times a week in case management. this is a similar situation that we would be working with someone and they would agree we would pay the storage so they are not giving up this property that they may decide is a period of time form of housing for them down the road. we would store it which is about $150 a month for a vehicle . we are looking at 4-5 vehicles but now that